The logical problem with Calvin and Calvinism

[TahitiRun]

Hmmmm.....

Calvin states that he believes the "spirit" and the "soul" to be one in the same and used interchangeably. Thus, that is how he treats the spirit/soul, using it interchangably.

Yes, that's how Calvin treats the subject. However, that understanding, from my perspective, is not biblical. The soul is a compound of Body + Spirit (i.e: Breath of Life), Gen 2:7.

Spirit is an element of the soul. Not the soul itself. And the two terms (spirit and soul) should not be conflated as Calvin does.

From my reading of the Institutes, the "spirit/soul" is created and immoral. The body is created, destroyed, and reborned (at the resurrection). Calvin goes into this in Book III, Ch 25.6 in his Institutes. This seems to be a rational interpretation.

However, you seem to be making a distinction of three parts; body, soul, and spirit. Could you provide a short descripture of each of these?

Biblically, "body, soul and spirit" are stated and used as separate terms (1Th 5:23). However, the two terms, Body and Spirit, when united together become the third term Soul. Examples of uniting two different elements to form/become a compound would be:

NaCl (sodium and chloride) become Salt
H2O (two hydrogen and one oxygen) become Water

Likewise, Body and Spirit become Soul

My own understanding of the Hebrew term "Nephesh", usually translated as "soul" or "living being" in English bibles, is here:

What is the human soul technically?

The Hebrew word "nephesh" (soul), the Greek words "psyche" (soul) and "pneumatic" (spirit), and the English word 'soul" are polysemantic. Their lexical meanings overlap. For precision and argumentation, I define spirit as a non-baryonic (invisible) substance that houses a person's conscience. I...

www.christianforums.com

 

[HarleyER]

Yes, that's how Calvin treats the subject. However, that understanding, from my perspective, is not biblical. The soul is a compound of Body + Spirit (i.e: Breath of Life), Gen 2:7.

Spirit is an element of the soul. Not the soul itself. And the two terms (spirit and soul) should not be conflated as Calvin does.

Biblically, "body, soul and spirit" are stated and used as separate terms (1Th 5:23). However, the two terms, Body and Spirit, when united together become the third term Soul. Examples of uniting two different elements to form/become a compound would be:

NaCl (sodium and chloride) become Salt
H2O (two hydrogen and one oxygen) become Water

Likewise, Body and Spirit become Soul

My own understanding of the Hebrew term "Nephesh", usually translated as "soul" or "living being" in English bibles, is here:

What is the human soul technically?

The Hebrew word "nephesh" (soul), the Greek words "psyche" (soul) and "pneumatic" (spirit), and the English word 'soul" are polysemantic. Their lexical meanings overlap. For precision and argumentation, I define spirit as a non-baryonic (invisible) substance that houses a person's conscience. I...

www.christianforums.com

I know this is a very old argument (two: body, soul/spirit or three: body, soul and spirit) and has never been fully decided by Orthodoxy Christianity. So while Calvin might have view it one way, he was not alone. Lots of good theologians viewed it this way. However, your perspective isn't wrong either and you make some very good points (especially with 1 Th 5:23).

I guess I don't have a stance one way or another. I'm willing to cut Calvin a break on this since it really has never been conclusively decided upon nor was it consider heresy by the church. It wouldn't be a case where I would discard his writings.

Do we have two or three parts? Body, soul, and spirit? Dichotomy or trichotomy? | GotQuestions.org

Do we have two or three parts? Body, soul, and spirit? Is humanity dichotomous or trichotomous?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[TahitiRun]

I know this is a very old argument (two: body, soul/spirit or three: body, soul and spirit) and has never been fully decided by Orthodoxy Christianity. So while Calvin might have view it one way, he was not alone. Lots of good theologians viewed it this way. However, your perspective isn't wrong either and you make some very good points (especially with 1 Th 5:23).

I guess I don't have a stance one way or another. I'm willing to cut Calvin a break on this since it really has never been conclusively decided upon nor was it consider heresy by the church. It wouldn't be a case where I would discard his writings.

Do we have two or three parts? Body, soul, and spirit? Dichotomy or trichotomy? | GotQuestions.org

Do we have two or three parts? Body, soul, and spirit? Is humanity dichotomous or trichotomous?

www.gotquestions.org

The difficulty is not so much with regards to the trichotomy vs. dichotomy debate (shown in your link), but rather with keeping the term "soul" (the whole "man") on the proper side of the equation.

The terms soul (Heb: Nephesh) and spirit/breath (Heb: rûach) are shown to be contrasted in scripture through the use of Hebrew parallelism, though examples are not easy to find due to bible translation anomalies. For example, the two terms are contrasted in the book of Job, here:

Job 12:10 In whose hand is the soul (Heb: Nephesh) of every living thing, and the breath (or spirit, Heb: rûach) of all mankind.

In this particular passage, the term "soul" (Heb: Nephesh) is used with regards to "every living thing". While the term "breath" (or spirit, Heb: rûach) is being used with regards to "all mankind".

The relationships within each clause, however, is not the real emphasis, but rather the parallel relationships that exist between the two clauses. If you'll notice, the term "soul" in the first clause parallels with the term "spirit/breath" in the second clause, while the phrase "all living things" in the first clause parallels with "all mankind" in the second clause.

What's important here, at least for this discussion, is the relationship between the clauses. "All mankind" is shown to be a sub-set of "all living things". In like manner, "breath or spirit" is shown to be a sub-set of the term "soul". Soul, like "all living things" are compounds, while spirit and mankind are parts or the elements that make up those compounds.

This Hebrew understanding of the term "soul" was simply not appreciated or it was not recognized by Augustine, the RCC, Calvin or the doctrines of "man" they taught. That Calvin was not alone in his thinking I would agree with.

In my view, the doctrines/dogma of "Man" that are currently called "orthodoxy" within most Christian denominations are decidedly in the camp of Platonism and Hellenistic philosophy and thinking.

Paul warns of this, here:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[TahitiRun]

Another example of soul (Heb: nephesh) and spirit (Heb: rûach) being differentiated through the use of Hebrew parallelism is found in Isaiah, here:

Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired Thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me have I sought Thee earnestly; for when Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.

In the first clause, the phrase "my soul" parallels with the second clause phrase "my spirit within". However, the relationship of "my spirit within" to "my soul" isn't actually clarified until we read further into the final clauses, three and four.

In clause three the term "earth" is paralleled with "inhabitants" in clause four. Here, "earth", like "soul" defines the whole, while "inhabitants", like "spirit" defines an element, or a part of that which the whole consists of.

Anyway, more food for thought.

 

[HarleyER]

The difficulty is not so much with regards to the trichotomy vs. dichotomy debate (shown in your link), but rather with keeping the term "soul" (the whole "man") on the proper side of the equation.

The terms soul (Heb: Nephesh) and spirit/breath (Heb: rûach) are shown to be contrasted in scripture through the use of Hebrew parallelism, though examples are not easy to find due to bible translation anomalies. For example, the two terms are contrasted in the book of Job, here:

Job 12:10 In whose hand is the soul (Heb: Nephesh) of every living thing, and the breath (or spirit, Heb: rûach) of all mankind.

In this particular passage, the term "soul" (Heb: Nephesh) is used with regards to "every living thing". While the term "breath" (or spirit, Heb: rûach) is being used with regards to "all mankind".

The relationships within each clause, however, is not the real emphasis, but rather the parallel relationships that exist between the two clauses. If you'll notice, the term "soul" in the first clause parallels with the term "spirit/breath" in the second clause, while the phrase "all living things" in the first clause parallels with "all mankind" in the second clause.

What's important here, at least for this discussion, is the relationship between the clauses. "All mankind" is shown to be a sub-set of "all living things". In like manner, "breath or spirit" is shown to be a sub-set of the term "soul". Soul, like "all living things" are compounds, while spirit and mankind are parts or the elements that make up those compounds.

This Hebrew understanding of the term "soul" was simply not appreciated or it was not recognized by Augustine, the RCC, Calvin or the doctrines of "man" they taught. That Calvin was not alone in his thinking I would agree with.

In my view, the doctrines/dogma of "Man" that are currently called "orthodoxy" within most Christian denominations are decidedly in the camp of Platonism and Hellenistic philosophy and thinking.

Paul warns of this, here:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Job is history put into a poetic format. Like much of the Hebrew grammar in other places, the Hebrews often said stated things in a chiastic structure. A very simple chiastic structure is Mark 2:27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Same thing just viewed from a different perspective. There are all sorts of chiastic structures throughout scripture, especially in the Old Testament. Consequently, when God says:

Job 12:10 In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

He most likely is just stating the same thing from a different perspective, especially since Job is written in poetic form.

For more information on chiastic structure see What is a chiasm / chiastic structure in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

As far as your comment, "This Hebrew understanding of the term "soul" was simply not appreciated or it was not recognized by Augustine, the RCC, Calvin or the doctrines of "man" they taught. ", this appears to be an error. Justin Martyr (100-165AD), one of the earliest apologists of the church, talks a great deal at length about the soul. His theology perspective, in my opinion, was wrong in that he believed the soul could be annihilated. But his dialogue shows that the "soul" was talked about early on. Justin Martyr talks at length in his dialogues about the soul and even states how Plato view of the soul was incomplete. I also believe, if I remember correctly, Justin Martyr stating that all philosophies are really a variation of Judean/Christian beliefs (I think this discussion is in his works, "Dialogue with Trypo"). They use the term "philosophy" much like we use the term "worldview". This showed a direct connection between the Hebrew view and the Christian view.

Likewise, Polycarp (one of the earliest writers and a disciple of John) writes:

“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.” (Epistle to the Phillipians)​

While Polycarp does not mentions the soul by name, it certainly is implied.

What the Hebrew understanding of the soul is now is irrelevent. What the Hebrew understanding of the soul was back in Jesus' time shows that even the Jews had disagreements. The Saducees didn't even believe in a resurrection of the death, angels, etc. The Pharisees believed in all those things. The refinement of this over time is due to the enlightenment of scripture.